Distant Worlds AI

Distant Worlds is a vast, pausable real-time, 4X space strategy game which models a "living galaxy" with incredible options for replayability and customizability. Experience the full depth and detail of large turn-based strategy games, but with the simplicity and ease of real-time, and on the scale of a massively-multiplayer online game. Now greatly enhanced with the new Universe release, which includes all four previous releases as well as the new Universe expansion!

Moderators: Icemania, elliotg

Lihnit23
Posts: 45
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 4:20 pm

RE: Distant Worlds AI

Post by Lihnit23 »

Wow. I just started a test game. My Boskara are zipping through rail gun tech and are now researching the 2nd stage racial torp tech. In the policy files, I have overall focus: raw power, area focus: weapons; tech emphasis 1: torps, 2: rail guns, 4: construction, 5: hyper disruption, 6: armor.

Have you adjusted the policy files in-game? The modding guide says that policy file settings override the race settings.

ORIGINAL: Tcby

...edit: although there is a slight problem with the list of disallowed components provided by Lihnit23. It disallows the first torpedo tech, thereby preventing boskarans from researching the prerequisite technology for their racial tech.

My string works perfectly in my game. The Boskaras are midway through stage 2 racial torpedo tech even though the starting torp is disallowed.
User avatar
Shark7
Posts: 7936
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2007 4:11 pm
Location: The Big Nowhere

RE: Distant Worlds AI

Post by Shark7 »

OK, looked and am redoing stuff based on the new.

There will be 12 base types of templates for me. Basically 3 sets of templates based on energy, projectile, mixed and special weapons.

Of course this will take some time, so be patient.
Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'
Bingeling
Posts: 5186
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2010 11:42 am

RE: Distant Worlds AI

Post by Bingeling »

ORIGINAL: Tcby

It's midnight in this part of the country :)

Who are you referring to Bingeling?
Icemania, the post directly above.

User avatar
Icemania
Posts: 1847
Joined: Wed Jun 05, 2013 9:14 am
Location: Australia

RE: Distant Worlds AI

Post by Icemania »

Okay I have retested twice with 1.9.5.2 patch up to the 4 year mark.

Research Performance
In both tests the AI built one more Energy Research Station so performance has improved. The AI is researching at 70-75% of capacity. Fast Energy of course but very slow Weapons and High Technology Research.

Exploration Performance
In both tests neither of the 2 Explorers went straight to the 2 Ruins as proposed. The pattern was either explore a world or two then asteroids. Or explore asteroids then a world or two. Ignore the asteroids guys until later! Warp Field found at the 2.5 Year and 3 Year mark. What was fantastic was to see the Explorer move to the next target as soon as the resource/ruin was found without waiting to get to the centre of their current targets. I lost count of the number of times I suggested that ... you all owe me a beer!

Weapons Research Order
Unchanged i.e. completely daft.

High Tech Research Order
Why does the AI research Proximity Sensors (etc, etc) before Enhanced Resource Exploration given the Exploration AI change that has been made? Elliot earlier in the order please ...

Base Design
Large Spaceport Construction Yards and Docking Bays increased 50%.
Mining Stations have 5 Shields rather than 3, 5 Weapons rather than 3.
Gas Mining Stations have 6 Docking Bays rather than 4.
Small changes compared to what was proposed. Let's monitor performance.
None of the other suggestions from Post 36 have been implemented.

I hope a lot more here is coming in the 1.9.5.3 patch as Erik hinted earlier.
User avatar
Icemania
Posts: 1847
Joined: Wed Jun 05, 2013 9:14 am
Location: Australia

RE: Distant Worlds AI

Post by Icemania »

ORIGINAL: Bingeling
And you did not put a "comment" symbol at the start of the line? Not sure if it is ; or whatever.
Yes I checked the syntax. More than a few times!

User avatar
Icemania
Posts: 1847
Joined: Wed Jun 05, 2013 9:14 am
Location: Australia

RE: Distant Worlds AI

Post by Icemania »

ORIGINAL: Lihnit23
Wow. I just started a test game. My Boskara are zipping through rail gun tech and are now researching the 2nd stage racial torp tech. In the policy files, I have overall focus: raw power, area focus: weapons; tech emphasis 1: torps, 2: rail guns, 4: construction, 5: hyper disruption, 6: armor.

Have you adjusted the policy files in-game? The modding guide says that policy file settings override the race settings.
I've changed them back to the default just in case ... even though there were no clashes i.e. "more beams" ... and still can't get it to work.

User avatar
Icemania
Posts: 1847
Joined: Wed Jun 05, 2013 9:14 am
Location: Australia

RE: Distant Worlds AI

Post by Icemania »

Maybe Disallowed Components gets overruled if any of the ship design templates have those components ... ?
User avatar
Icemania
Posts: 1847
Joined: Wed Jun 05, 2013 9:14 am
Location: Australia

RE: Distant Worlds AI

Post by Icemania »

It's an absolute smorgasboard of weapons in the ship and base template files. A focus on one weapon type ... what a difference it would make to the AI ...
User avatar
Tehlongone
Posts: 208
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 7:38 pm

RE: Distant Worlds AI

Post by Tehlongone »

ORIGINAL: fenrislokison

While i agree on the general idea you exposed, i must say, having the private sector paying to do state stuff exists in reality, especially in the security area and health care area.

For example, in France, asbestos in buildings isn't authorized anymore (since some years now) and old buildings using it must be cleaned, but the owners of the buildings have to pay for it, not the state.

another example is that cars must be equipped with safety belts and be built such as in case of an accident, the car crushes itself to absorb the impact. All this is paid by the buyers of the cars, in most case, the private sector.

Well, for these examples, you could object that the state doesn't sell the services or objects it forces people to use, but here is one:
- in France, electricity production is done by EDF company, which is property of the state, so the state sells electricity to people. At the same time, there are regulations to equip buildings with propers electrical installations used by EDF to monitor electrical distributions. These electrical installations are partly paid by the customers, in other words the private sector.

So while i perfectly understood your point regarding abuse, it is still very possible to have the state enact laws forcing buildings to be equipped with such or such equipment and having the state being the only seller of said equipment.
A bit dirty, but perfectly valid.

The abuse in the game comes from the fact the private sector is much much stronger than it is IRL so it can endure a lot more and the fact that game people are just sheeps, much more than in reality as they don't strike or rebel as they should be.
Right it's not unrealistic that the state would want to do it, it's unrealistic that it would be carried out mindlessly. Putting in small cheap things is realistic, like a proximity sensor even though it doesn't really need it from a selfish POV.
A long range sensor, however, is pushing it. An exploit. It would be a valid strategy only if the game reacted to it. Excessive defenses and research stations are even worse, there's no way private companies would have accepted paying for that.
User avatar
Spidey
Posts: 455
Joined: Sun Dec 08, 2013 11:39 am

RE: Distant Worlds AI

Post by Spidey »

We're not talking about radar towers on garden sheds, though. We're talking about installations floating around in the super-hostile environment we call space. It seems plenty realistic to me that the state has to approve designs and it further seems plenty realistic to me that the state makes an agreement with corporate powerhouses. They supply the long range scanners and in return the state won't tax them. They do the research and share their results and in return they don't get taxed. They get the benefits of the advances they create, but the state gets to share those benefits.

There is an issue in DW: Universe, though. If you order retrofits on civilian ships and bases, instead of paying for those retrofits, you're getting paid. Which means if you have 50 stations and you tell the to retrofit to something expensive, you get a crapton of money. I'm guessing the guy who started this discussion of private vs public sector expenses ran right into this without realising that it was a bug. For that matter, I guess the beta testers did too. Well, I'm assuming they did and that it's a bug because if it's as designed then all this talk about challenge and AI and whatnot just became a complete joke.
User avatar
Tehlongone
Posts: 208
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 7:38 pm

RE: Distant Worlds AI

Post by Tehlongone »

ORIGINAL: Spidey

We're not talking about radar towers on garden sheds, though. We're talking about installations floating around in the super-hostile environment we call space. It seems plenty realistic to me that the state has to approve designs and it further seems plenty realistic to me that the state makes an agreement with corporate powerhouses. They supply the long range scanners and in return the state won't tax them. They do the research and share their results and in return they don't get taxed. They get the benefits of the advances they create, but the state gets to share those benefits.

There is an issue in DW: Universe, though. If you order retrofits on civilian ships and bases, instead of paying for those retrofits, you're getting paid. Which means if you have 50 stations and you tell the to retrofit to something expensive, you get a crapton of money. I'm guessing the guy who started this discussion of private vs public sector expenses ran right into this without realising that it was a bug. For that matter, I guess the beta testers did too. Well, I'm assuming they did and that it's a bug because if it's as designed then all this talk about challenge and AI and whatnot just became a complete joke.
The problem with that is twofold 1) The AI doesn't do it. 2) The game is not designed to accommodate that.

The result: massive advantage to the player, the AI won't have a clue. Also the problems inherent in that approach are not simulated leading to pure advantage. That to me is a clear-cut exploit.

From a realism POV I also question how the state would be allowed to design the private ship/base designs after the initial expansion phase is over, that wouldn't fly in anything but a totalitarian government.
User avatar
Spidey
Posts: 455
Joined: Sun Dec 08, 2013 11:39 am

RE: Distant Worlds AI

Post by Spidey »

You're quite right that the player gets quite the advantage by being in control of ship and base design but that's something that can't be helped under the current system. Any remotely clever design is inherently superior to the template designs, particularly since those designs are fairly general in scope.

Regarding the realism of the state getting to design private sector vessels, do consider that we're well beyond the time where flight was a brand new thing and yet I'm pretty sure most governments in the world insist on approving airplane designs in order to avoid various forms of ballistic missiles dropping left and right with untold casualties as a consequence. And that's just flight. Ignoring the hazards of space, all ships and bases are equipped with one or more nuclear reactors. I think it's plenty realistic that designs involving those are somewhat regulated.
User avatar
pycco
Posts: 345
Joined: Tue May 28, 2013 8:36 pm
Location: United States of America
Contact:

RE: Distant Worlds AI

Post by pycco »

this could be avoided by letting the ai copy are designs for both ship and bases. the player being able to micro ships there is no way around this.players will always out perform an ai, until actual ai is achieved.
It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.
-Mark Twain
Raap
Posts: 404
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2011 1:46 pm

RE: Distant Worlds AI

Post by Raap »

Not really though, since the AI is unlikely to have access to the same technologies.
User avatar
Tehlongone
Posts: 208
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 7:38 pm

RE: Distant Worlds AI

Post by Tehlongone »

ORIGINAL: Spidey
You're quite right that the player gets quite the advantage by being in control of ship and base design but that's something that can't be helped under the current system. Any remotely clever design is inherently superior to the template designs, particularly since those designs are fairly general in scope.

Regarding the realism of the state getting to design private sector vessels, do consider that we're well beyond the time where flight was a brand new thing and yet I'm pretty sure most governments in the world insist on approving airplane designs in order to avoid various forms of ballistic missiles dropping left and right with untold casualties as a consequence. And that's just flight. Ignoring the hazards of space, all ships and bases are equipped with one or more nuclear reactors. I think it's plenty realistic that designs involving those are somewhat regulated.
States do not design some airliners and say: "Here are the designs, pick one of those". States only regulate by handing out minimum standards though most of that is also privately decided upon. Also there is a difference between "somewhat regulated" and demanding they pay for hugely expensive research stations on all their mining stations! :)

I know the player already gets an advantage by being able to optimize his designs but putting expensive components on private ships/bases that only benefits the state and which the AI doesn't make the slightest use of goes beyond that. I see it as against the spirit of the game rules, an exploit and tantamount to cheating. Then again it's just a single player game so whatever, I just personally wouldn't like playing like that.

Like you said the AI already makes shitty designs, no need to further increase the divide.

Anyway, maybe some components should simply be made state only.
User avatar
Spidey
Posts: 455
Joined: Sun Dec 08, 2013 11:39 am

RE: Distant Worlds AI

Post by Spidey »

So it's a minimum requirement for civilian designs that they have some broad spectrum research capability in case of emergencies as well as long range scanners for early warning against inbound structural hazards. Doesn't really change much, does it? :-)

Anyway, you're quite right that we're talking about a degree of optimization that the AI currently can't manage but so what? Ship design is one of a number of parameters in the game and I don't see why we shouldn't take advantage just because the AI isn't too good at it. Whether it's ship design or manual scouting to find the super luxuries early or a single weapon research focus or using growth-enhancing tax rates beyond 3 bil population, beating the AI really boils down to finding something it's not too good at and doing that thing better than it does.

PS
Posting this third time for luck. Please don't kick me off again while eating my post, god damn piece of crap forum software.[:@]
fenrislokison
Posts: 71
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2014 10:50 am

RE: Distant Worlds AI

Post by fenrislokison »

To sum up, abusing is the problem and try to fix the abuse by modifying the system is very complicated (i did hear that about a lot, lot of games x) )

As it is a single player game, it's not this big of a problem: if you want to abuse, please do, if you want a fairer challenge, please don't.
thefinn12345
Posts: 91
Joined: Thu May 29, 2014 2:40 pm

RE: Distant Worlds AI

Post by thefinn12345 »

Yeah AI is an issue, the AI seems to dig a hole for itself with regards to money as well. I just spent a day playing the game only to finally be ready to fight and went around the map with explorers only to find that ... all the AI's had were 4 ships per fleet. Most were sending gifts of 2k credits still - a gift based on their current money.

Seems they just went broke and found no good way out of it ?
User avatar
Icemania
Posts: 1847
Joined: Wed Jun 05, 2013 9:14 am
Location: Australia

RE: Distant Worlds AI

Post by Icemania »

ORIGINAL: thefinn
...the AI seems to dig a hole for itself with regards to money as well...
I assure you that is not a problem in the EXTREME Game of the Month!!!
Nanaki
Posts: 306
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2014 3:06 pm

RE: Distant Worlds AI

Post by Nanaki »

I noticed that the AI tends to build fleets much bigger than it can realistically support in war, then does not even properly use those fleets to respond to attacks, keeping them stationed on backwaters while the enemy is bombarding planets unopposed on the main front. It has gotten to the point where I am now manually controlling my ships and fleet because the AI automation is just too bad at it.
I ate the batter of the bulge at Hans' Haus of Luftwaffles
Post Reply

Return to “Distant Worlds 1 Series”